> I think a first step is to make reviews public, in particular also rejects. As a reviewer, I have no objections towards my reviews going public. However, I h

> I think a first step is to make reviews public, in particular also rejects. As a reviewer, I have no objections towards my reviews going public. However, I have often had to tell authors that their paper is dumb (not in those terms, obviously), and I'd rather keep those reviews private. Being rejected is hard enough without the entire world knowing how much your paper sucks. Of course, there are terrible reviewers too. But IMHO that's better solved via better area chairs than with a Twitter mob. I would rather not being 4chan into the review process.